Joan of Arc (1999) User Reviews (99)

Magnificent and spectacular historic television film based on Joan of Arc's life

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 17 November 2004]

The movie is set in ¨Hundred years' war¨ developed between 1337 and 1453 (downfall date of Constantinople invaded by Turks). The historical deeds are the following ones : Henry V vanquishes Charles VI in Agincourt (1415) that was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War . The battle occurred on Friday , 25 October 1415 and Henry V takes over Normandy . Charles VI of France signs ¨Troyes treatise¨ in which Henry V is wedded Charles's daughter . Later on , Henry VI of England proclaims himself king of France but then Joan of Arc , being nineteen years old , proclaims in Bourges to Charles VII as king , after being crowned in Reims . Joan of Arc acting as a divine mission defeats the English army in Orleans . But she's captured by the Borgoneses and is handed over the English authorities and they fire her for heretic and witch in Rouen .

Runtime movie is overlong , approx. three hours , but is neither boring , nor dull , but entertaining . The battle scenarios are very well designed , there are thousands of extras and the struggles are breathtaking . The ending trial in which she's condemned is very interesting and the sentence at the burning pole is overwhelming . Lelee Sobieski , who was only sixteen when shooting , gives a good interpretation , likeness to Neal Patrick Harris as Charles VII . Furthermore , Peter O'Toole as the cunning Bishop is excellent . The support cast is satisfying : Jacqueline Bisset (the mother) , Powers Boothe (the father) , Olimpia Dukakis (the nun) and Peter Strauss (the captain). The motion picture was well directed by Christian Duguay , an expert filmmaker of TV movies . The yarn will appeal to historic event buffs . Rating : 7/10 . Worth viewing the TV picture .

Other films about this historic character are the following ones : Joan of Arc (1999) by Luc Besson with Milla Jovovich , Tchéky Karyo as Dunois , John Malkovich as Charles VII and Toby Jones ; Saint Joan (1957) by Otto Preminger with Jean Seberg , Richard Widmark , Richard Todd and John Gielgud ; The trial of Joan of Arc (1962) by Robert Bresson with Florence Delay ; Joan of Arc (1954) by Roberto Rosselini with Ingrid Bergman ; Joan of Arc by Victor Fleming (1948) with Ingrid Berman , J Carrol Naish , War Bond and Jose Ferrer as Charles VII . Furthermore , silent adaptation such as the classical La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928) by Carl Theodor Dreyer with Maria Falconetti and Joan The woman (1916) by Cecil B Demille

True to Both History & Theology - Some Background

[KFSIMONATL · 8/10 · 18 November 2005]

Do great times call forth grand souls or do grand souls change great events or both? Joan's World - Historical Background. It was a time when the English crown controlled huge territories in France - and not by way of some invasion or occupation, but as the direct result of the fact the English King, Henry IV, (also Duke of Lancaster) and his son Henry V (both of Shakespeare fame)were descendants of the original French Duke of Normandy, William, who had conquered England in 1066 and thus the King of England continued to remain the feudal "owner" of Normandy, Brittainy and Acquitaine. This English King, Henry V would stake the biggest claim and actually force the King of France to appoint this same English King, his "lawful" successor to the French throne.

Combine this with the fact the the English had a willing French ally in the form of Charles, Duke of Burgundy who was a rival for the French crown. Its no surprise that the Burgundians were the bully boys of this era. They were allies of the English and thus their French-speaking local "enforcers." The English would control these areas for over 300 years. The "Hundred Years War" would be fought to maintain that English control.

So at the time of this story, the Dauphine of France, the weak French prince Charles was not yet the crowned King of France and controlled only a fraction of the country. Even he saw his chances for the crown as limited. Another Charles, the Duke of Burgundy, France, was far more powerful than the Dauphine and to offset his limited powers, Burgandy had allied themselves with the English.

It was into this was brutal world, that Joan of Arc was born. A savage time of "might makes right" and a nobility class-sanctioned brutalization of a citizen population caught in a titanic chess match as pawns between a class of nobles who, although they had taken ancient oaths sworn to guard the defenseless, nevertheless preyed on the very people they were sworn to defend.

There are parallels to many parts of the world where so-called "war lords" have re-imposed a modern-day feudalism of protectors and protected.

Joan was inspired, (and just by what/who, remains a hotly debated theological and psychological discussion to this day) to free France of English domination. Why? Catholics might argue that she was called to this by God in order to preserve France as a bastion of Catholicism against the invading "heresy" of the Protestant Revolution. Think how events might have turned out if England had conquered all of France and imposed Protestantism on France.

Historical Sequel to Joan of Arc.

Henry V would die in France of a fever and never assert this claim. With Joan's military successes as precedents, and the Duke of Burgandy eventually abandoning his English allies, Henry V's son, Henry VI, a weak-willed but pious monarch, would be VERY unsuccessful in asserting any of his father Henry V's claims even though another war, the "Thirty Years" war would be fought by Henry VI's dukes to try to take back lost regions. The English would eventually lose that war and surrender, city by city, castle by castle, the entire regions of Normandy and Aquitaine back to the French. Ultimately, the Ennglish would control only the port city of Calais before losing that last foothold on the Continent. A new war in England, a civil war between the houses and Dukes of York and Lancaster would be fought, in part, from the failures of the Lancastrian King, Henry VI to keep those hard-fought territories - "The War of the Roses."

Now why is the movie great? Because it faithfully captures the life of a illiterate and simple peasant girl, called by unseen forces to change the world around her in direct conflict with the brutality, the conflict, the religious zeal/fanaticism and the lust for power of he times into which Jean D'Arc was born into.

If you don't know much about either Joan or the times, you learn a great deal from this wonderful movie. Joan was on a "mission from God," at least to her way of thinking and the religious forces of her day in the form of the Church hierarchy were dumbfounded initially and enraged, eventually that some "mere girl" would dare to tell them anything about God's will for either herself, let alone her King and country.

The Maid of Orleans' life is a testament to one person, even a unschooled young girl's in an age of female political impotence to change events on a grand scale.

A Decent Effort To Deal With A Controversial Figure

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 9 May 2003]

Overall, I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was well put together and well researched and definitely gave the viewer a flavour of the times in which it was set: 14th century France (although the movie was actually filmed in the Czech Republic.)

Leelee Sobieski put on a very convincing performance as Joan of Arc, the young girl who hears what she believes are divinely inspired voices calling her to unite the French people and lead them in rebellion against their English conquerors. To his credit, director Christian Duguay leaves the origins of the voices very much to the discretion of the viewer. They may or may not be real; Joan may or may not be imagining them. What's important (and historically accurate) is that Joan herself believed in the voices, and they inspired both her and the French nation. Powers Booth and Jacqueline Bisset were believable as Joan's understandably confused parents trying to decide whether their daughter is divinely called or simply rebellious (or possibly insane.) Peter O'Toole was well cast as Bishop Cauchon (and the religious divisions of the time, just before the open outbreak of the Protestant reformation, was well presented) and I was surprisingly impressed by Neil Patrick Harris as King Charles.

All that sounds good, and yet I can't find myself going higher than 6/10 on this. Somehow, in spite of the good performances and well put together story I found the movie inexplicably difficult to follow, and frankly much too long. An hour could have easily been cut out of it and not missed. To me, that's a major weakness. It doesn't destroy the movie. This is still a good movie worth watching. But for me, it just misses the point of moving from good to very good.

A challenging role

[Big Neil-2 · 26 April 2003]

Joan is perhaps the most female difficult role to cast. The actress must be attractive but not conventionally alluring; magnetic but not intellectual; a towering figure but physically slight. You must understand why people would die for her. Above all, the performer must convey an authentic sense of religious piety, a virtual impossibility for young actors today. Sandrine Bonnaire--a wonderful star in every other respect--tried her hand in the recent French version but was too sexy for the part.

As Joan, Sobieski juggles the disparate requirements astonishingly well. This is emphatically not the kind of movie in which the actress can merely show up and look decorative; you have to work at it, but as Sobieski revealed in Uprising, she has the capacity for challenging period roles. And that also means that in contrast to her female peers in the business, she has a long professional future.

Watch out for O'Toole in an astonishing performance as a Cardinal who gradually realizes that Joan is the real thing.

The culminating scene--no details provided, you must see it yourself--is curiously uplifting and properly theological rather than merely unpleasant.

good for TV movie

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 14 March 2021]

It's the story of Joan of Arc (Leelee Sobieski) in 15th century France. She was born in 1412 and died at the age of 19 in 1431. This starts off on the wrong foot by presenting her story almost as a fictitious legend and invoking a name like Merlin. It's surrendering historic accuracy right off the bat before a single frame of film. It's not a good choice especially since the movie seems to be trying for real history.

Leelee is a good enough actress. The best part is that she is well within the age range of the historical person. The rest of the cast is amazing. For a TV movie, this has a lot of A-list acting power. The production is more than good enough. It is France right after the Dark Ages in an apocalyptic war-torn landscape. That part is well portrayed. The battles are muddy in real world but the action filming is a bit old fashion. There are real castles and real fires and plenty of extras. There is no CGI. There is an attempt at grand epic. As a TV movie, it gets to a level higher than most expectations.

Leelee Sobieski is Awesome

[slightlymad22 · 7/10 · 12 October 2014]

The very talented Leelee Sobieski stars as Joan of Arc who unites the divided French country and leads the people to freedom.

Powers Booth and Jacqueline Bisset are cast as her parents. The always delightful Neil Patrick Harris is King Charles VII, Robert Loggia and Olympia Dukakis are both here too, as is Shirley MacLaine and Peter O'Toole.

There is a lot I liked in this, and I was enthralled throughout. All the acting is superb, with Sobieski the heart and core of the movie. The movie would not work with a lesser actress carrying the movie. My favourite scenes were the ones Sobieski and NPH shared especially the one early on in the movie. The action scenes are well done and the score is superb as is the song by Charlotte Church.

Recommended.

Well done biopic of an amazing young woman

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 8 September 2020]

Born to a peasant family in northeastern France during the Hundred Years' War with England, Joan (Leelee Sobieski) hears the voices of saints instructing her to help the Dauphin Charles (Neil Patrick Harris) claim the French kingship and drive out the Brits. Charles persuades Joan to declare herself the prophesied Maid of Lorraine and inspire an army against the invaders. Peter Strauss plays the skeptical captain, Peter O'Toole a bishop, Powers Boothe her grim father and Shirley MacLaine Madame de Beaurevoir.

While "Joan of Arc" (1999) was a TV production with the limitations thereof, it's quite well done if you're in the mood for a realistic medieval flick. The first two-thirds are great but, to be expected, the third act bogs down into a sad talky drama of impending doom. However, since this is a true story, we knew that's where it was going, right?

Incredibly, Leelee was only 15 years-old during shooting. She has her own unique style, like John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Jack Nicholson. You either roll with it or you don't. I found her convincing; she struck me as a late teen who had the temerity and austerity of a proverbial "mission from God" to unite the French and motivate them in battle.

As always with these kinds of movies some things are inaccurate, whether due to artistic license or budget constraints. For instance, Joan's military devotees were not known to have gone to Rouen, Normandy, to liberate her at any time, let alone at the time of her killing. Speaking of which, she was burned at the stake on May 30, 1431, not in the winter.

The film runs 140 minutes with a 180 minute uncut version. It was shot in the Czech Republic.

GRADE: B

Superior acting by Leelee

[mrskywalker · 7/10 · 25 May 2002]

Leelee holds Joan of Arc together and makes this a vision of a miracle. Actually the director an writer probably did not plan it but her inspired performance changed the direction of this film. This was far better than the pathetic and dark Messenger. It starts out great but has too many doses of cynicism injected, something is always behind something. Perhaps people really just were led by this wonderful girl. It is at times apologetic and rationalizes Joan's finding of Charles in the crowd etc..

It also misses her fantastic statements at her trial. Also as in all previous Joan films, it fails to focus on the real reason she was tried and executed which was the fear of British rulers of her tremendous leadership of the French people. Joan was a military threat to the English powers. The religious leaders were unwilling or unable to stand up to the British rulers or military for Joan. Joan did unite the people of France and France became the nation that it is because of her. Indeed Joan was indeed a miracle of her era and the destiny that God gave her the opportunity for was indeed a miracle. Perhaps the best film about her is yet to be made.

Touching, exciting movie - great

[LittleSwallow · 10/10 · 12 August 2005]

The story of Joan D'Arc has always interested me, because this was a girl who stood by her beliefs till the end, no matter what she was threatened with or who tried to make her doubt them. She had great conviction, and especially in the Middle Ages, where women's roles were passive, the fact that she was able to rise up, lead an army, and defend herself with extreme wit and cleverness from the onslaught of treachery before and during the famous trial, shows just how remarkable this young girl was (19 when she died).

This movie captures brilliantly the cleverness and strength of this brave heroine. Acting was in the most part very good, as one is gripped from the great opening sequence all the way to the end. While there are some unconvincing CGI effects (mainly of Joan's saints), the battle sequences are very believable to watch. One has to note, however, that the writers took quite a few liberties with the script. The viewer has to be careful to not take every event as fact. I won't go into detail, but please read about the history of Joan, as, even though this movie does a great job in showing Joan as a smart, God-loving person, some events in the movie did not happen historically, or else the writers changed them to suit their own goals.

In the end, however, the main point about Joan, is that she was able use her faith, head, and heart to thoroughly aggravate and embarrass those who would have her dead. In the end, she is still the victor. And the movie reflects this.

Surprisingly good!

[moonlightreflections · 7/10 · 4 July 2000]

I possess somewhat of a cynical attitude when it comes to made-for-TV movies, particularly the yearly network features that revolve around medieval or fantasy themes. In fact, I wasn't very enthusiastic as I watched "Joan of Arc" for the first time, especially seeing how I was doing so in a foreign language class which would require a questionnaire and exam to be completed at the film's conclusion (there is nothing worse than having to watch a movie looking for insignificant information as to how old somebody's third cousin is, etc.). So it was with some surprise that I found myself thinking about the film days after I had finished watching it.

To be candid, the only factor that I initially thought to be somewhat redeeming for the movie was the lead actress, Leelee Sobieski; and to be even more candid, the only thing that sparked any actual interest in the movie was the shoulder-length wig that Sobieski began to sport a third of the way through (I'm well aware of how infantile that is, but I like short hair). Due to the class schedule, we were only allowed to watch a small portion of the movie after that particular point, but the twenty minutes that were presented were enough to ignite interest in the story of Joan of Arc, and that night I conducted some research which led into a bit of fascination with the life of this courageous young woman.

Needless to say, that immediately changed my outlook on the movie, and I became enamored of every minute that the remainder of it had to offer, despite the fact that it was not necessarily historically accurate. But I still regarded the first portion of the film to be extremely amateurish, with the banality that inhabited it being as repulsive as that of all the other made-for-TV movies in existence (for example, a minor character who was not featured on screen for more than two seconds is murdered, and emotive music begins to play while everybody screams "Nooo!" for thirty seconds or more).

After watching the film, I learned that it was a two-part miniseries. "Fair enough," I thought to myself. "First half is bad, second is much better. I suppose that that evens out." And then I learned that I had watched a butchered-down version of the movie, with close to thirty minutes having been edited out; so I felt compelled to acquire a full version of the movie, and flabbergastedly took note that the first half was simply a notch below the latter in terms of quality, though nowhere near as bad as that of the version I had watched. And what surprised me the most? The fact that the ill-fated minor characters which had not even showed up in the version I'd originally seen actually had a fair amount of screen time for their roles.

Most of the other comments on this film accentuate on its positive aspects, so it doesn't serve much of a purpose to employ sheer redundancy. Suffice to say that Sobieski's performance adheres to your mind long after you have seen this film, and Neil Patrick Harris, whose career seemed doomed to failure by the image presented in "Doogie Howser, M.D.," plays out his role in an excellent fashion. My one recommendation would be to avoid the commercial one-tape VHS version of this film, and either buy the DVD, or solicit a two-tape version on an online auction site. For being one of the best TV movies to come out in a long time, "Joan of Arc" deserves the effort that its search demands.

Fairly camp drama

[bullions27 · 1/10 · 10 June 2002]

After witnessing the first half of this series, I was left wondering if I had just watched a female rendition of Braveheart. I suppose I can only blame the director. There are way too many scenes and camera work which Duguay copies from the aforementioned movie (the quick cuts between King and the wounded Joan of Arc the biggest stinker), and the complete bane of all dramas, overusage of slow motion. This is nowhere near the disaster as Atilla (also starring Powers Boothe), but nevertheless, a similar camp movie filled with historical innacuracies and wild paranormal fantasies.

Great depiction of the story of Maid of Orleans!

[marcin_kukuczka · 9/10 · 3 November 2004]

A lot of films have been made about this person, but none of them seems to be as powerful as this one. The reason is not only the fact that few films of such topics include such a great cast (most of the characters are played by great stars of cinema). It is, I think, the way that Mr Duguay portrayed Joan of Arc, really as she most probably was like: a young, sweet maiden who dared say the British: "I will lead my nation to victory through God's help!" She turns out to be a saint rather than, like in some other movies, a religious fanatic.

The portrayal of Joan is created perfectly by a young, beautiful actress, with Polish ancestry, Leelee Sobieski. Throughout the movie, she beautifully stresses her innocence and gentleness going in pairs with the capability of leadership. In my opinion, no matter if Leelee will appear in other 50 films in her life career, this role will always be UNFORGETTABLE!

Others who shine in their roles are, of course, Peter O'Toole as bishop Cauchon. On the one hand, he judges Joan and accuses her of pride and vanity; but on the other hand, fights for her "eternal soul". Maximilian Schell also gives a fine performance as a cruel and double faced representative of inquisition. But I particularly like Peter Strauss as La Hire, a commander of the French army. This role is typical for him: someone hesitating and doubting, but in the long run, opening his eyes and totally setting his heart on the values.

"I stopped to believe in others and started to believe myself only. At Orleans, I stopped to believe myself, I started to believe in you," as he says once to Joan - REALLY POWERFUL!

The mini series about Joan of Arc is a must in my film gallery. Without hesitation, I give it 9/10. GREAT STORY, WONDERFUL CAST, EXCELLENT MUSIC, MEMORABLE QUOTES, GREAT LOCATIONS (old castles in the Czech Republic)! This movie is really visually stunning. Do see it! Having seen once, you will feel a need to see this at least for the second time.

A pleasant story

[zutterjp48 · 7/10 · 12 January 2021]

I enjoyed very much this story of Joan of Arc.In this film Joan of Arc (very well played by Lee Sobieski) is a young Catholic maid and a great patriot. Her visions are less important than the visions ofJoan of Arc in the film of Luc Besson (1999) !! She became a hero, because as patriot she wanted to throw away the English occupant and little by little the French people became more courageous.Of course there was this famous trial in Rouen, but this was possible because the Duke of Burgundy sold her to the English. A pleasant journey through this history of France. The performances of Leelee Sobieska, Chad Willett, Peter o'Toole and Neil Patrick Harris are very good.

lots of pretty pictures, but...

[ldavis-2 · 3/10 · 14 June 2002]

aside from Joan being burned at the stake (and they didn't even get THAT right), it is inaccurate when it isn't ignoring key points. For example, Joan was captured at Compiègne on 23 May 1430, 9 months after Charles was crowned. In the mini, she leaves home not to lead her army again (against her will), but to be captured and a martyr. At her trial, the prosecution tried to connect her with some superstitious practices supposed to have been performed round what was popularly known as the "Fairy Tree" (l'Arbre des Dames), but this isn't even mentioned! Instead, in part 2, Joan goes into "Jesus mode," with repeated talk by her and others about meeting her end, as Jesus does in the films about him, to the point where you just want to say "die, already!"

Where did they get the stuff about the relationship between Joan and her father, which is inexplicably resolved just as Joan is about to leave home forever? There was no plan of a last-minute rescue attempt by her soldiers (and her wanna-be boyfriend being allowed to inform her of it is pure hooey!) About her execution: her hair was cut off and she was put in a gown. She walked to the stake holding a crucifix, and she was NOT put to death within minutes after recanting her confession. The film makers couldn't bother to get any of this right. Indeed, the scene of the execution features snow flurries -- in late May!

It also bypasses some really interesting tidbits that would've given viewers both insight into Joan and her relationship with her men. For example, the day after she began her liberation of Orleans was Ascension Day. To celebrate, Joan declared a truce, kicked the prostitutes out of the camp, agreed to the attack planned for the next day, and dictated another letter to the English which promised "a disturbance such as will be eternally remembered" if they didn't go home. None of this is in the mini. It doesn't even bother to mention that Joan was cleared of all charges at a retrying 25 years after her death.

Because of the sloppiness and the dopey, like-a-broken-record script, I give it *** out of 10 stars.

Leelee Sobieski becomes Joan of Arc is this fine film.

[TxMike · 19 September 2001]

In a stroke of good fortune for those of us who like a good historical religious story, this film and "Messenger" both came out in 1999. They are both excellent, both relate the same story, but in quite different ways. Here, Joan is depicted in the more traditional manner, a young girl who is both humble and headstrong in her wanting to follow God's will, and help set France free of the English. As I did for "Messenger", I rate this one a strong "8" of 10.

I own the DVD, and it is a very nice one. No extras, but the picture and sound, in ProLogic, are both excellent. The movie was originally broadcast as a "mini-series", as I recall, but the DVD is one continuous presentation 3 hours and 5 minutes long. However, there are no wasted scenes here, and the entire story is captivating.

To add a great touch of realism, much of the filming was obviously done in unheated churches and castles. As a result you can see the breath of the characters in the cold as they speak. It probably was really like that during the 1400s. Also, the colors chosen for the costuming remind me of the colors in old masters' paintings. The deep rose, muted royal blue, the earth tones, all added to the realism.

Leelee Sobieski really became Joan for this role. Plus, all the other veteran actors were in top form. There isn't any flaw in the film version of the story of Joan of Arc.

Better than expected

[joecoceda · 6/10 · 9 April 2019]

Not a huge fan of the subject matter/time period, but Leelee Sobieski's performance made this one more enjoyable than I expected it to be. Execution scene is mercifully tame in this version, compared to some other adaptations. Not bad for a for-TV miniseries. 6/10

Decent movie

[Audie-T · 7/10 · 1 February 2005]

Leelee Sobieski is well cast as Joan of Arc, or Jeanne d'Arc in French. She probably doesn't look much like the historical Joan, because the real Joan was probably a stocky farm girl tomboy who would not shy away from a fight. Sobieski looks more like an angel, but no complaints here. Her performance give a realistic portrayal of a young girl who is destined to lead the French into battle.

Now there is something that struck me as an anachronism. All this talk about "France" and "nation," when true nation-states didn't come into existence until the advent of railways, telegraph and newspapers. Of course, many a historic tale/event has been misused for nationalists to push their agenda. In this case, the French nationalists pose no harm, so no harm done. I can imagine that the people in those days did want to have their own French king back and the English out of France.

On the other hand, weren't the Burgundians French too?

The combat scenes looked great, I wouldn't have minded to see a few more. I watched both the original and the cut-down version, and the cut-down version isn't any worse. Some minor scenes about her early youth are skipped over, which helps tighten the overall movie.

Wonderful rendition

[yourke · 9/10 · 18 December 2005]

I had to write a comment after reading the previous one. I found this to be a very refreshingly straightforward rendition of the Joan of Arc story that taught me, as one who only knows the story from movies, a great deal about the political and social realities at the time, including the hunger for real leadership and real spiritual authority. Not too different from our own times now.

Apparently a great deal of research was done, including a thorough reading of the transcripts of Joan's actual trial in the original French, to get both the setting and Joan's personality right. And I think it shows. It certainly held my interest, and nothing about its budget distracted me.

Plus they did not make her a complete victim - she knew enough to go willingly to the stake. And that's a courageous move on the part of the film's creators which adds that final necessary element of spiritual integrity. Enough so I willingly cried many times through it without feeling manipulated... these matters of soul and spirit felt real to me, and for a skeptical Scorpio like me that's high praise for work well done.

dismal

[fkkemble · 2/10 · 7 February 2007]

I rented this movie expecting something powerful, well researched, intelligently directed and with memorable acting. In the event, even the great Peter Otooles role is lacklustre. This movie has none of these qualities and in fact resembles the kind of thing that I would have expected from a Doris Day and Rock Hudson movie. There must be a director and a screen writer out there that can produce something really stirring from raw material that begs to be exploited and using proper actors rather than a vapid collection of Hollywood wannabes. If anyone has ever seen 'A man For All Seasons ( 1966 ) directed by Fred Zinneman then use this as a gauge for what constitutes a really good film. Any takers? Francis Kynaston Kemble

Best thing on television in a long time

[steve.schonberger · 9/10 · 9 November 1999]

It's not often that television movies compete with big screen productions, but this one does.

Leelee Sobieski's performance is one of the best I've seen by a young actress. She really looked like someone who had seen a vision of divine power, and yet she also looked like a young girl, driven beyond her personal strength by the force of the visions. Many of the other performances were good also, but hers was so outstanding that the others paled next to hers.

The script writers took some creative license with the history. In some cases they did it for length and clarity, improving the storytelling at the expense of the history. In other cases, I didn't see how the story as written improved on the story as understood by history (although they didn't weaken the story either). But overall, the story was excellent storytelling and still good history. And since Leelee's performance was so spectacular, it was good that the script kept her on screen through most of the story.

The battle scenes show how medieval warfare was often more a matter of morale than casualties or tactics. They manage to capture the mood and chaos of battle, without the unnecessary gore that would make the movie inappropriate for children (or television). Most important, the battles feel like they're decided by the morale of the soldiers, and that those soldiers' morale depends on the presence of Joan.

This movie far outclasses almost all television movie-making. Even by the tougher standards of big screen movies, it's still an excellent movie. It makes me want to see more about the Joan of Arc story.

Great for kids

[Thulemanden · 5/10 · 3 July 2001]

This is a pretty shallow edition with no great depth in acting and directing. The scenery and robes look great but it's merely a moving cartoon.

The fat New Yorker dialect of the heroine similar to Jodie Foster is so out of place that it gives me stomach cramps.

It seems to be fairly historical correct, so it could be recommended to kids but other than that it's a waste.

very inspiring film

[sharonartiste43232 · 9/10 · 18 January 2007]

I watched Joan of Arc on VHS and I really enjoyed it. I saw it on TV when it came out in 1999. This was a very well made motion picture and it is much better made than the movie theater films. Leelee Sobieski is a very talented young actress and played the part of Joan of Arc very well. I don't know a lot about French history, but I learned a lot by watching this movie. It was nice to watch a film without any profanities and sex scenes. It was also nice that they portrayed Joan as a woman of strong faith in God. The scenery and costumes were done very nicely. All of the actors and actresses did a wonderful job. It would be nice if they made more movies like this, of this quality.

why don't they make more movies like this!?

[Erik G. · 16 August 1999]

This is great stuff. Like everyone else, I loved Leelee as Joan. She is a very good young actor. The story is well done, much better than most big budget movies (that usually end up as just dreck aimed at idiots). The acting is good, the script is great, etc, etc--what I really loved about it was the period detail. Awesome. These guys have full plate armor that makes the guys in 'Excalibur' seem underdressed! Gotta love that. If only for the battle of Orleans, this movie is worth a look. Such intensity in a battle is so rarely matched, and they did it without overexcessive gore and blood, so I can let my kids watch it without flinching (too much). This is good, because a story like this, tragic as it is, is important for everyone to hear. Not only that, the story is TRUE. I'm sure some liberties were taken in this version, but it doesn't matter, the heart of the story is about idealism in the face of bitter cynicism. Joan brings hope and victory with her vision, and for her effort is betrayed and murdered in a gruesome fashion. But she never backed down, never withdrew her convictions, and never succumbed to doubt or self pity. We should all think about that--especially in today's world of sarcasm and scorn. I'm not very religious, but this story inspires me nonetheless. And...I love midieval battle scenes with plate armor and huge swords :)

Disappointing and nondescript by turns

[Dice_Man · 5/10 · 29 July 2006]

Considering that 'The Messenger' was deeply flawed, I took the vast majority of positive comments here to mean I would be in for a treat watching 'Joan of Arc' - particularly as I have a soft spot for Ms. Sobieski.

Unfortunately, post-viewing, I feel I must redress the balance on the comments board here because it is plainly not as good as many here are making it out to be. I was hardly impressed by the title at the beginning suggesting we were in the Dark Ages......in 1412. Was Joan of Arc really prophesised by Merlin? Why, after telling us seven years had passed on screen, did JOA tell her priest it had been six? Was she really ennobled? Did her peasant brother really come to fight with her - suddenly acquiring the trappings of knighthood (especially a horse?) and die just as quickly as he had arrived? We know all about the 'voices' - but did they really forewarn her of Charles's treachery? Were there really drinking glasses in 1430?

...And the clincher of course, is how did a 'rescuing' French army get all the way through occupied territory to camp outside the walls of Rouen (to make a charge against stone walls on horseback....which is pretty pointless) without anybody knowing about it?

The production was generally good, and some effort had been made on the sets, costumes and armour. The battle scenes were poor, however - never achieving anything approaching realism. When JOA is hit by an English arrow at Orleans, she recovers and rides back to the walls of the Tourelle (where, conveniently, the English foot soldiers have largely disappeared and helpfully left the French ladders against the walls of the Tourelle from the first attack. How kind!)

As for the performances, there are far too many lapses into American accents for the characterisations of any except Peter O'Toole and Shirley MacLaine to be truly convincing (though those two stalwarts truly shine when on screen.) Leelee - though I admire her so, is stilted and too uncharismatic in the lead role - a pre-requisite one would think?

The script, on the whole, is curiously un-engaging. It feels as if the writers were going through the motions. There is little in the way of memorable quotes.

As a piece of television entertainment, it fits the 'passing time' bill only. It is in no way a standout piece of television production, nor should it be treated as such. After watching this, I found myself reappraising 'The Messenger' with slightly more favour.

DICE MAN

This film is worth every moment!

[atreyu_hibiki-1 · 10/10 · 17 January 2005]

Joan of Arc is indeed my biggest hero of all time! Everything about her, beauty,brains and her remarkable courage. Leelee Sobieski is incredible in this film, she takes it all in total stride. The passion with which she portrays her role is..... I am at a loss for words! I admit it with pride, I cried like a baby. It's that good. The medieval fight scenes were well done, in many aspects too. Some of the special effects are somewhat unrealistic, but it gets the point across. Very well, actually. The other actors did their parts well. They definitely showed their love for her, as it does in the true story. If you want to see a true, fascinating story of faith then, see this movie!